About Me

Saturday, March 31, 2018

UK "election interference" chart fails to mention that in 2016 it invited foreign interference in its Brexit election by allowing Obama to promote defeat of Brexit, threatening US economic harm to UK if it did otherwise. UK hosted biggest intervention by a US president in a Western democracy in decades. With its "Russia poison" lies UK hopes Daddy US will let it in on the US taxpayer cash bonanza in coming war with Russia

Obama's plea to
British voters ahead of a June referendum on membership of the European
Unionwas welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron and other supporters
of the EU, but denounced by those campaigning to leave as meddling in
British affairs."...(UK voters ultimately defied Obama and passed Brexit on June 23, 2016. NY Times failed to compare Obama's
interference to 9/11 or bombing of Pearl Harbor though the Brexit outcome toppled a government, causing resignation of UK PM David Cameron: 6/24/16, "David Cameron resigns after UK votes to leave European Union," UK Guardian, Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason, Rajeev Syal).
....................

"The UK government’s presentation on the Salisbury incident, which was repeatedlycited in recent days as an “ultimate proof” of Russia’s involvement into Skripal’s assassination attempt, was made public earlier today.

First. Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC” –a false statement. Novichok was originally
developed in the USSR (Nukus Lab, today in Uzbekistan, site completely
decommissioned according to the US-Uzbekistan agreement by 2002). One of
its key developers, Vil Mirzayanov,
defected to the United States in 1990s, its chemical formula and
technology were openly published in a number of chemical journals
outside Russia. Former top-ranking British foreign service officer Craig Murray specifically noted this point on March 17:

"I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016,
Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could be
produced from commercially available ingredients. Iran succeededin synthesising a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full
cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the
OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.

This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May’s “of a type
developed by Russia” line, used to parliament and the UN Security
Council.This explains why Porton Down has refused to cave in to
governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states.

Second.“We are without doubt that Russia is
responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and
motive. There is no plausible alternative explanation”"

– an outstanding example of self-hypnosis.None of the previous items could even remotely lead to this
conclusion. The prominent British academician from the University of
Kent Prof. Richard Sakwa has elaborated on this on March 23 the following way:

"Rather than just the two possibilities outlined by Theresa May,
in fact there are at least six, possibly seven.The first is that this
was a state-sponsored, and possibly Putin-ordered, killing… This
version simply does not make sense, and until concrete evidence emerges,
it should be discounted…

The second version is rather more plausible, that the authorities
had lost control of its stocks of chemical weapons. In the early 1990s
Russian facilities were notoriously lax, but since the 2000s strict
control over stocks were re-imposed, until their final destruction in
2017. It is quite possible that some person or persons unknown secreted
material, and then conducted some sort of vigilante operation…

The third version is the exact opposite: some sort of anti-Putin action by those trying to force his policy choices…

The fourth version is similar, but this time the anti-Putinists
are not home-grown but outsiders. Here the list of people who would
allegedly benefit by discrediting Russia is a long one. If Novichok or
its formula has proliferated, then it would not be that hard to organise
some sort of false flag operation. The list of countries mentioned in
social media in this respect is a long one.

Obviously, Ukraine comes top
of the list, not only because of motivation, but also because of
possible access to the material, as a post-Soviet state with historical
links to the Russian chemical weapons programme. Israel has a large
chemical weapon inventory and is not a party to the OPCW; but it has no
motivation for such an attack (unless some inadvertent leak occurred
here). Another version is that the UK itself provoked the incident, as a
way of elevating its status as a country ‘punching above its weight’.
The British chemical weapons establishment, Porton Down, is only 12
kilometres from Salisbury. While superficially plausible, there is
absolutely no evidence that this is a credible version, and should be
discounted.

The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph,
that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele’s
‘Trump Dossier’.The British agent who originally recruited Skripal,
Pablo Miller, lives in Salisbury, and also has connections with Orbis
International, Steele’s agency in London. In this version, Skripal is
still working in one way or another with MI6, and fed stories to Steele,
who then intervenes massively in US politics, effectively preventing
the much-desired rapprochement between Trump and Putin. Deep anger at
the malevolent results of the Steele and British intervention in
international politics and US domestic affairs prompts a revenge
killing, with the demonstration effect achieved by using such a bizarre
assassination weapon.

The sixth version is the involvement of certain criminal
elements, who for reasons best known to themselves were smuggling the
material, and released it by accident. In this version, the Skripals are
the accidental and not intended victims.

There are various elaborations
of this version, including the activities of anti-Putin mobsters. One
may add a seventh version here, in which Islamic State or some other
Islamist group seeks to provoke turmoil in Europe."

Do you wish to know our refutations of any other
substantial “hard evidence” against Russia in the UK paper? Sorry, but
that is all. The primitive information warriors in what used to be the
heart of a brilliant empire, today are incapable of designing an even
slightly plausible (they love this word, right?) document on a
super-politicized case.

What follows is even more depressing. Slide 3 is dedicated to some sort of anatomy lesson:

Slide 4 seemingly represents a real “honey trap”. Just look at it:

The authors of this “report” mixed up a very strange cocktail of
multitype allegations,none of which have ever been proven or recognized
by any responsible entity (like legal courtor dedicated official
international organization). Of course we are not committed to argue on
every cell, but taking e.g.